There are actually two buildings that house the Medina County Common Pleas Court and the Medina County Clerk of Courts. One of them is a Victorian structure that is 170 years old and the other is a relatively much newer building that was built in 1968.
The older building houses the Medina County Domestic Relations Court, the Medina County Adult Probation Department, part of the Medina County Clerk of Courts staff, and the Medina County Juvenile Court Probation Department.
The newer building is where the two General Division Judges of the Medina County Common Pleas Court are located; the Medina County Law Library; the Medina County Probate and Juvenile Court Judge; and the main operations of the Medina County Clerk of Courts.
The Victorian building, while charming, has a lot more maintenance issues than the 1968 building. This was shown last week when an employee of Domestic Relations Judge Mary Kovack stepped through the floor of the Domestic Relations Court. Judge Kovack believes that the steam pipes that heat the building weakened the wood floor.
A more detailed account can be found by clicking here.
Showing posts with label Judge Mary Kovack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Mary Kovack. Show all posts
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Update on Proposed Changes to Civ. R. 4
Medina County Domestic Relations Judge Mary R. Kovack submitted the following concerning proposed changes to Civ. R. 4:
Update on proposed changes to Civ. R. 4.
The comments on the change to plaintiff's service and the elimination of the perfection of "unclaimed" service by regular mail were overwhelmingly negative. 45 lawyers (on behalf of themselves or law firms) opined that the current system for service works well. Sixteen organizations or groups voiced opposition, including: Legal Aid agencies in Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Southeastern Ohio; the 1500-member Ohio Association for Justice; the Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) Directors’ Association and the individual CSEA agencies in Franklin, Clermont, and Montgomery counties; the Litigation Section and the Negligence Law Committee of the OSBA; the Ohio Creditor Attorneys Association; the Akron Bar Association’s Civil Procedure and Appellate Courts Committee; the Crawford County Bar Association; and the Ohio Department of Public Safety. Three subdivisions of the Ohio Judicial Conference voiced opposition: the Civil Law and Procedure Committee, the Domestic Relations Law and Procedure Committee, and the Domestic Relations Judges Executive Committee. Judges and magistrates from six counties also voiced significant concerns about the changes. One pro se litigant also weighed in against the proposed changes.
On December 5th, the Commission on Rules and Procedure voted unanimously to withdraw the proposed changes.
.
The only proposed change to Civ. R. 4 that the Commission voted to recommend to the Supreme Court for final approval is the addition of Civ.R. 4.2(G). This provides for service on Limited Liability Companies, a matter not addressed in the current rules.
Update on proposed changes to Civ. R. 4.
The comments on the change to plaintiff's service and the elimination of the perfection of "unclaimed" service by regular mail were overwhelmingly negative. 45 lawyers (on behalf of themselves or law firms) opined that the current system for service works well. Sixteen organizations or groups voiced opposition, including: Legal Aid agencies in Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Southeastern Ohio; the 1500-member Ohio Association for Justice; the Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) Directors’ Association and the individual CSEA agencies in Franklin, Clermont, and Montgomery counties; the Litigation Section and the Negligence Law Committee of the OSBA; the Ohio Creditor Attorneys Association; the Akron Bar Association’s Civil Procedure and Appellate Courts Committee; the Crawford County Bar Association; and the Ohio Department of Public Safety. Three subdivisions of the Ohio Judicial Conference voiced opposition: the Civil Law and Procedure Committee, the Domestic Relations Law and Procedure Committee, and the Domestic Relations Judges Executive Committee. Judges and magistrates from six counties also voiced significant concerns about the changes. One pro se litigant also weighed in against the proposed changes.
On December 5th, the Commission on Rules and Procedure voted unanimously to withdraw the proposed changes.
.
The only proposed change to Civ. R. 4 that the Commission voted to recommend to the Supreme Court for final approval is the addition of Civ.R. 4.2(G). This provides for service on Limited Liability Companies, a matter not addressed in the current rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
